brickipediafandomcom-20200229-history
Forum:Strunk and White
* All articles should contain correct spelling, punctuation, capital letters and language structure. ** Articles should use British English for their spelling. Differences between UK and US spelling can be seen here. ** LEGO, DUPLO and QUATRO should all be spelled with capitals. ** Generally, minifigure should not be abbreviated to "minifig" or "fig". I want to change this to (major changes in bold): * All articles should use correct spelling, punctuation, grammar, etc. according to Strunk and White's ''The Elements of Style. ** '''All other points in this MOS override those in Strunk and White.' ** Articles should use British English for their spelling, unless otherwise indicated by a canonical source. There are some spelling differences between American English and British English. ** LEGO, DUPLO and QUATRO should all be spelled with capitals. ** Generally, minifigure should not be abbreviated to "minifig" or "fig". The reason for this change is that "correct" is not specific enough; different sources have different standards. Strunk and White is considered a universal standard for English grammar, so I feel that it's our best choice. I added "unless American English is used by a canonical source" to avoid ambiguity, but that's only a minor change that I believe is uncontroversial. So, what do you all think? FB100Z • talk • 02:12, November 12, 2011 (UTC) * hey, why does the spelling have to be british? why not american? 02:16, November 12, 2011 (UTC) *: That's not what we're discussing here... FB100Z • talk • 02:21, November 12, 2011 (UTC) * Per this five-month discussion. And congrats to me, I actually went and dug it out. :D 02:25, November 12, 2011 (UTC) **ok thanks, and yes i do like the MoS proposals. 02:29, November 12, 2011 (UTC) * , I see no reason not to. 02:29, November 12, 2011 (UTC) * Strunk and White? It may be more accurate, but I've never heard of it, and I doubt that people who are just checking out the MoS are going to look it up (or maybe I'm just weird and I'm the only one who hasn't heard of it). I agree with the American thing, but maybe it should clarify that if both British and American spelling is used, the British takes precedence? 10:42, November 12, 2011 (UTC) * Why don't we just say use good English, because I don't think anyone will bother to read that (like I won't). And also, while I wikipedia-ed it, there are critics of the book, such as a professor at Edinburgh University (and co-writer of Cambridge's guide to grammar) and some newspapers and others. Whatever happened to, you know, just writing it in what is considered English, I don't see why we need to over-complicate it by complying to an old book that very few of us have read and that no one is going to read before editing. Whatever happened to keeping stuff simple? - - Lest we forget - CJC 13:37, November 12, 2011 (UTC) *: How exactly does using Strunk and White make things more complicated? It resolves in advance little arguments such as whether to put spaces around an em dash or whether split infinitives are okay. All I'm doing is making the term "good English" more specific, so we have less ambiguities. However, if you have an alternative to Struck and White that you think is superior, let us know — all this is just clarification, not complication. FB100Z • talk • 20:56, November 12, 2011 (UTC) *::We could use, say common sense. Since the majority of users won't read this, I don't see how this will actually help us, unless the few who know Strunk and White are going to be checking the English on every article, it will make little-to-no difference to any of the articles. - - Lest we forget - CJC 22:17, November 12, 2011 (UTC) *::: If it makes no difference, then why are you opposing the change? FB100Z • talk • 01:08, November 13, 2011 (UTC) *:::: I think he means it wouldn't make any difference in the quality of articles, but would make a difference in terms of confusing people/people not reading it (correct me if I'm wrong CJC). 06:27, November 13, 2011 (UTC) *:::::What Nighthawk said. - - Lest we forget - CJC 13:06, November 13, 2011 (UTC) *::::::Ah, I see. You do have a point, but I consider it worthwhile to sacrifice accessibility in favor of clarity and unambiguity. FB100Z • talk • 20:22, November 13, 2011 (UTC) * I agree with Strunk and White myself... [[User:King of Nynrah|'KoN']] [[User talk:King of Nynrah|'Talk']] 13:41, November 12, 2011 (UTC) *@NHL: I haven't heard of it either... 23:37, November 13, 2011 (UTC) *: Same… [[User:Agent Charge|'Charge']] [[User talk:Agent Charge|'talk']] Go Briki! 01:16, November 14, 2011 (UTC) *Wikipedia it, for God's sake >_> FB100Z • talk • 21:05, November 16, 2011 (UTC) **I wikipedia-ed it and decided 21:11, November 16, 2011 (UTC) ***So what alternative is there, may I ask? "Correct" grammar is not correct enough. FB100Z • talk • 21:14, November 16, 2011 (UTC)